Cricket World Cup 2019

[SaintRam]

I've just seen the actual scoreboard (I've not watched cricket for a long time); how come there wasn't a second tie-break over? 

Are the rules of the super over that if someone get's out they lose regardless of runs acquired? Or is it that the second team HAS to score more and can't bring it back to a draw? 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

17 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

I've just seen the actual scoreboard (I've not watched cricket for a long time); how come there wasn't a second tie-break over? 

Are the rules of the super over that if someone get's out they lose regardless of runs acquired? Or is it that the second team HAS to score more and can't bring it back to a draw? 

If the super over is a tie, victory is to be awarded to the team with the most boundaries during the game and super over. That was England.

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

If the super over is a tie, victory is to be awarded to the team with the most boundaries during the game and super over. That was England.

Huh. That's interesting.

Why not keep doing overs until someone wins on outright scoreline?

I've always thought, perhaps naively, that Cricket was a sport that was quite light on technicality rulings.

Does number of boundaries factor into other versions of Cricket, like final positions in a league (if Cricket has leagues)?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

7 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Huh. That's interesting.

Why not keep doing overs until someone wins on outright scoreline?

I've always thought, perhaps naively, that Cricket was a sport that was quite light on technicality rulings.

Does number of boundaries factor into other versions of Cricket, like final positions in a league (if Cricket has leagues)?

No idea! I only know what was put on the screen at the start of the over. I imagine it would be difficult to keep changing the batsmen and fielders if it ended in another tie.

1 hour ago, Srg said:

I still ended up disliking them as I was turned against them by the guy in the commentary box. We have Nasser Hussain's brand of playing down England, compared to the partizan anti-England pro-opposition from all the other commentators. The guy was literally celebrating multiple times towards the end - had to mute it several times.

I thought both commentators at the end were outstanding. Really brought it to life.

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

No idea! I only know what was put on the screen at the start of the over. I imagine it would be difficult to keep changing the batsmen and fielders if it ended in another tie.

 

I assumed that was why England batted first in the super over, so you only have the one change per if NZ started the second.

And surely, it's Cricket, a bit of effort and time wasted watching the crowd get drunk is core to the game! ? 

 

Still, if thems the rules thems the rules. I guess the ruleset of this version of Cricket has been with the intent of streamlining it as much as possible, it just seems unlikely to me that the game would go on THAT long if you continued to play overs until someone won outright.

[StockholmRam]

Id be interested to know in ODI how many games have actually had to use the Super Over to decide the winner. Anyone know??

[rynny]

15 minutes ago, StockholmRam said:

Id be interested to know in ODI how many games have actually had to use the Super Over to decide the winner. Anyone know??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_over

Gives matches decided by the super over. 

[froggg]

As Butler knocked the bails off I shot out of my chair for a minute of frenzied whooping and jumping around, it was spectacular, quite incredible, and fully deserved, well played England.

[SaintRam]

 

[King Kevin]

I saw New Zealand v South Africa at Edgbaston  earlier on in the tournament ,you have to pick a team and I supported the Kiwi's .After their performance and sportsmanship yesterday I'm glad I did. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 hour ago, King Kevin said:

I saw New Zealand v South Africa at Edgbaston  earlier on in the tournament ,you have to pick a team and I supported the Kiwi's .After their performance and sportsmanship yesterday I'm glad I did. 

A team greater than the sum of their parts if ever there was one.

 

[Wolfie20]

1 hour ago, King Kevin said:

I saw New Zealand v South Africa at Edgbaston  earlier on in the tournament ,you have to pick a team and I supported the Kiwi's .After their performance and sportsmanship yesterday I'm glad I did. 

No issue with England winning the tournament but New Zealand must be the unluckiest losers ever. You think back to the catch on the boundary which resulted in a six (tossing the ball to his teammate half a second sooner and it would have been a wicket), the deflection off Stokes' bat which gave England a crucial extra 4 runs and an LBW appeal given not out by the umpire when it met all the requirements for being given out).

Sensational game.

[TigerTedd]

I am uninitiated in the ways of cricket, but happy to jump on any band wagon. 

I heard a decent explanation of why the 4pts after the ricochet off the bat counted this morning. But I’m still scratching my head over the 6pts awarded when the guy tripped on the boundary. 

I’m not complaining, but the fielder caught it, he tripped, but the ball didn’t cross the line, and even when he dropped it, another fielder caught it before it hit the floor. So the ball never crossed the line, and never hit the floor. How is that not out?

also, what’s the deal with the ashes? Is it not a bit tin pot to want to really beat one team. Surely ashes vs world cup is like Brian cloudy trophy vs fa cup. Maybe if you’re Forest, the Brian clough trophy is your cup final each year, but it’s a bit tin pot to think like that isn’t it?

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

I am uninitiated in the ways of cricket, but happy to jump on any band wagon. 

I heard a decent explanation of why the 4pts after the ricochet off the bat counted this morning. But I’m still scratching my head over the 6pts awarded when the guy tripped on the boundary. 

I’m not complaining, but the fielder caught it, he tripped, but the ball didn’t cross the line, and even when he dropped it, another fielder caught it before it hit the floor. So the ball never crossed the line, and never hit the floor. How is that not out?

also, what’s the deal with the ashes? Is it not a bit tin pot to want to really beat one team. Surely ashes vs world cup is like Brian cloudy trophy vs fa cup. Maybe if you’re Forest, the Brian clough trophy is your cup final each year, but it’s a bit tin pot to think like that isn’t it?

The catcher has to be in control of his movements. Staggering backwards while taking the catch is not in control because it is not a voluntary movement. Once he'd stepped on the boundary with the ball in his hand the ball has made contact with the boundary and it therefore 6 runs and the ball is now dead. Throwing it to another player counts for nothing in such circumstances.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

The catcher has to be in control of his movements. Staggering backwards while taking the catch is not in control because it is not a voluntary movement. Once he'd stepped on the boundary with the ball in his hand the ball has made contact with the boundary and it therefore 6 runs and the ball is now dead. Throwing it to another player counts for nothing in such circumstances.

Wow. That’s pretty harsh. 

But when someone gets ran out, you have to hit the stumps with the ball, you can’t just kick the stumps while you have the ball in your hand (like you could in baseball - touch the base with any part of your body while holding the ball). 

So the body is an extension of the ball in some circumstances, but not in others. 

[mozza]

Let's just be thankful the rules for once worked in our favour, someone, somewhere normally finds a way to deprive us of winning anything on some remote technicality. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

The catcher has to be in control of his movements. Staggering backwards while taking the catch is not in control because it is not a voluntary movement. Once he'd stepped on the boundary with the ball in his hand the ball has made contact with the boundary and it therefore 6 runs and the ball is now dead. Throwing it to another player counts for nothing in such circumstances.

It was unfortunate for nez Zealand, but he did take the ball to the boundary before he threw it to the other fielder. Fraction earlier doing that before he trod on the rope and its a catch and probably a kiwi win. Fortunate for England and stokes, but a chance that went begging for NZ. Just in the context of the fluke 4 right after you have to think someone up there had a beef with Boult.

[JoetheRam]

Almost calmed down now.

Can't add anything other than that was absolutely insane. On a par with the Ashes of 05 - but in a completely different way.

 

[Boycie]

Erm, when the ball hit Stokes bat as he was running back he hadn’t yet crossed the line back at the wicket.

Now I’m no expert on anything to be honest, but I’ve seen the rule book quote and it should have been awarded as 5.

Well done to New Zealand, World Champions!

[Anon]

16 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

also, what’s the deal with the ashes? Is it not a bit tin pot to want to really beat one team. Surely ashes vs world cup is like Brian cloudy trophy vs fa cup. Maybe if you’re Forest, the Brian clough trophy is your cup final each year, but it’s a bit tin pot to think like that isn’t it?

It's a different form of the game. Test cricket is the absolute pinnacle of the sport because of the mental and physical endurance required to compete over 5 days. There's no official test world cup, although the ICC have recently agreed to implement one, so playing the Aussies has kind of served as the de facto test world cup since they are always the or one of the best test cricket teams in the world.